- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
- Case
- Matter of Caruso
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03355
Background
Respondent Dominic Vincent Caruso was admitted to practice in New York in 1985 following his admission in New Jersey. In 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended Caruso for six months after finding that he had negligently misappropriated client funds in violation of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.15(a). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC) moved to impose reciprocal discipline in New York based on the New Jersey suspension. Caruso opposed the motion, requesting that the Court forego reciprocal discipline.
Holding
The Appellate Division imposed reciprocal discipline. Under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters section 1240.13(a), when AGC presents proof that an attorney has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, the attorney must demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed in New York for the underlying misconduct. An attorney may assert three limited defenses: that the foreign proceeding lacked due process, that there was an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct, or that the misconduct found in the foreign jurisdiction would not constitute misconduct in New York. The Court found that Caruso failed to establish any of these defenses. The negligent misappropriation of client funds constitutes professional misconduct in both New Jersey and New York, and the New Jersey proceedings afforded adequate due process protections.
Takeaways
New York will impose reciprocal discipline based on disciplinary actions taken by other jurisdictions unless the attorney can demonstrate one of the three narrow statutory defenses. The burden is on the attorney to show why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, not on AGC to prove the underlying misconduct anew. Negligent misappropriation of client funds, even without intentional conversion, constitutes a serious violation of professional conduct rules in both New York and New Jersey and warrants disciplinary action.
Why It Matters
Attorneys admitted in multiple jurisdictions should understand that disciplinary action in one state will almost certainly result in reciprocal discipline in New York. The narrow grounds for opposing reciprocal discipline—due process deficiency, infirmity of proof, or lack of corresponding misconduct in New York—are difficult to establish. This case reinforces that negligent misappropriation of client escrow funds, a common basis for discipline, will be treated seriously in both the originating jurisdiction and in New York on a reciprocal basis. Attorneys maintaining client funds should implement robust accounting and oversight practices to prevent even inadvertent mishandling of escrow accounts.